Religious debate

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

God hates democracy, he is a totalitarian dictator at worst, Feudal Monarch at best.

God doesn't hate democracy, he simply has no use for it with relation to himself. You don't run a househol using democracy, do you? Imagine if every parent said: "So, children, should you go to bed now?" or "Shall we decide that running in the road is a bad idea?"

Indeed, there are many similarities between Christianity and Marxism. The belief that human history is determined by forces which the individual cannot control, the collectivist ethos, the struggle of the afflicted in a world which will only persecute them, and the apocalyptic battle at the end of it which results in the new heaven and earth/workers paradise.

This is true, but Marxism is distinct in having A: always failed completely and B: being focused on this world, which never changes.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is true, but Marxism is distinct in having A: always failed completely and B: being focused on this world, which never changes.

Another similarity is the pick-and-choose Marxists we see these days, very much like the pick-and-choose Christians they criticise so much. For example, modern Marxists completely ignore Marx's call to either genocide or assimilate potentially anti-revolutionary minorities. Just like with liberal pick-and-choose Christianity, we know have the liberal left, picking bits of Marxism and trying to piece them together with the democracy of the bourgeoisie.

At least I could respect the devotion of the old-style socialists.

[rotorgun]

I'm confused. Are we having a debate on whether we are going to have a debate, or are we debating already what we think we are debating? Here is something to consider:

# Verse 18. ”For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;”

# Verse 19. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."

# Verse 20. “…the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:”

# Verse 21. “Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and

Verse 22. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

-Romans, Chapter 2

PS: I am no radical Christian, but I am devout, and humble in my beliefs. I judge no man, but let him to look into the mirror of his own soul. These are some fairly convincing arguments, set forth in a very legal style, arguing against atheism.

[Beskar]

God doesn't hate democracy, he simply has no use for it with relation to himself. You don't run a househol using democracy, do you? Imagine if every parent said: "So, children, should you go to bed now?" or "Shall we decide that running in the road is a bad idea?

In the House-hold, the parents make the decisions as legal guardians, also as such, the parents relationship is democratic and the children consult with their parents.

Obviously, this is describing one of those "perfect household" situations.

It was mainly a provocative statement for debate. One of the questions i always have, lets say the Christian God was real, why should you worship him? In many ways, he is like a Slave Master. He punishes those who defy him, he rewards his good servants, and wants to be worshipped. It is a rather dominating egotistical relationship. I don't intend to Godwin, but it is very similar to a Cult of Personality. Loyal supporters get rewarded, those who are not loyal end up on the short-end. I believe it even goes into if you live a veyr good life, you still end up going to hell for not worshipping him.

Then there are those institutions mainly in the catholic faith just like the Pope, which ranks people in a heirarchical structure, compared to Methodist concept of a personal God, where anyone can pray to him.

[Sigurd]

I'm confused. Are we having a debate on whether we are going to have a debate, or are we debating already what we think we are debating? Here is something to consider:

-Romans, Chapter 2

PS: I am no radical Christian, but I am devout, and humble in my beliefs. I judge no man, but let him to look into the mirror of his own soul. These are some fairly convincing arguments, set forth in a very legal style, arguing against atheism.

You can't use the Bible as proof for the existence of God, thereby showing that atheism is false.
Calling the Bible the word of God presupposes the very thing you are trying to prove and it becomes circular reasoning. It begs the question. You need to first prove that God exist before showing how this God inspired the writers of this book.

In short - you can't use Bible quotes in this debate.

[Kadagar_AV]

Am on vacation...

When I come back (sunday or so) I will PM Sigurd and we will set the time and rules for the debate properly.

Thus no need to further discuss much in this thread...

Can still be open though, if anyone have things to add. Please do not turn it into a religious discussion quite yet though.

Oh, and I do find biblical quotes as a line of reasoning for proving Gods existance as refreshing. I hope the debate will bring more to the table however :)

[Cute Wolf]

this is interesting.... I'll keep up with that...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In the House-hold, the parents make the decisions as legal guardians, also as such, the parents relationship is democratic and the children consult with their parents.

Obviously, this is describing one of those "perfect household" situations.

Well God is either a single parent, or three parents who always agree, or both; so there is no democratic consultation to take place. As regards the child/parent relationship: God is alway right and his children should always be obedient because of that. Even so, when his children are disobedient God will forgive if they will only admit to being wrong and ask for forgiveness.

It was mainly a provocative statement for debate. One of the questions i always have, lets say the Christian God was real, why should you worship him? In many ways, he is like a Slave Master. He punishes those who defy him, he rewards his good servants, and wants to be worshipped.

God is both infallable and impartial, as well as being just. He is a King, not a Slave Master. A Slave Master has his Slaves sacrifice for his benefit, God sacrifices Himself for his children/subjects.

As to why you should worship him: Counter question, why should you not? He is creator and ruler of the Universe.

It is a rather dominating egotistical relationship. I don't intend to Godwin, but it is very similar to a Cult of Personality. Loyal supporters get rewarded, those who are not loyal end up on the short-end. I believe it even goes into if you live a veyr good life, you still end up going to hell for not worshipping him.

You assmue a human viewpoint. Certainly, Personality Cults like Stalin's resemble religions, but the difference is sustantive because it is in the motivation and operation of the system. As I said, God is all powerful, infallable, and completely just. Your concept of "living a good life" does not include God, and therefore does not include His ordinances. So you apply your own standard of "good" instead of God's. Ergo, you might reach your own standard and consider tourself good, but you fall far short of God's (as does everyone).

the difference between you and a Christian would then be the recognition of the shortfall.

Additionally, you are rather fixated on the idea of hell as a "punishment". Hell, all window dressing aside, is the complete absense of God; something which no human beng suffers while alive. When you die you can go to be with God, or not, and the choice is your own.

what's to complain about, honestly?

Then there are those institutions mainly in the catholic faith just like the Pope, which ranks people in a heirarchical structure, compared to Methodist concept of a personal God, where anyone can pray to him.

Do you mean "catholic" or "Roman Catholic"?

[Beskar]

As to why you should worship him: Counter question, why should you not? He is creator and ruler of the Universe.

You are responding with a negative, which is argumentively illogical. The default state is the negative, ie: not worshipping, there is no God, there is nothing, etc. The null hypothesis. You need to actually give a reason to actually counter-it, thus, you cannot counter-claim as you have not defined any variables as to do it. In short, you have provided no alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis.

I could always go "I am not a slave, there is no one above me". Even then, lets say a boss of a company, where they are in one social-system ranked higher, you don't worship them. Even in other examples such as family, you don't worship your parents, build temples, burn incense, etc. Also, worshipping is an illogical notion in itself, even if some one is more powerful than you, it doesn't automatically give them rights.

"He is creator and ruler of the Universe" - Where is his mandate as a ruler, What gives him that right? Isn't he simply a tyrant just because he has power behind him? As a creator, does that give you defacto rights of ownership? If you worked in a biscuit factory, do you have rights to all the biscuits you produced, why would it make him some sort of owner? etc etc etc could go on for ages.

Do you mean "catholic" or "Roman Catholic"?

They are the same thing. The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, Also remember when they changed my high school name from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" in-line with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are responding with a negative, which is argumentively illogical. The default state is the negative, ie: not worshipping, there is no God, there is nothing, etc. The null hypothesis. You need to actually give a reason to actually counter-it, thus, you cannot counter-claim as you have not defined any variables as to do it. In short, you have provided no alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis.

The Christian perspective is that belief in God is the default position, while the majority of people across the planet do believe in God. First it was said, "there is a God" and then someone said, "no there isn't". So what you are doing is defining the positive/negative relationship to your advantage, not proving anything.

I could always go "I am not a slave, there is no one above me".

Of course you can, but stating it doesn't make it true.

Even then, lets say a boss of a company, where they are in one social-system ranked higher, you don't worship them. Even in other examples such as family, you don't worship your parents, build temples, burn incense, etc. Also, worshipping is an illogical notion in itself, even if some one is more powerful than you, it doesn't automatically give them rights.

Worshipping is illogical when it is directed at people; because of their nature. God's nature is different, so the comparison is not apt.

"He is creator and ruler of the Universe" - Where is his mandate as a ruler, What gives him that right? Isn't he simply a tyrant just because he has power behind him? As a creator, does that give you defacto rights of ownership? If you worked in a biscuit factory, do you have rights to all the biscuits you produced, why would it make him some sort of owner? etc etc etc could go on for ages.

Parents rule over their children, Kings rule over their subjects.

They are the same thing. The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, Also remember when they changed my high school name from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" in-line with it.

There is a dissambiguation section in the article you linked, you should read it.

[Beskar]

The Christian perspective is that belief in God is the default position, while the majority of people across the planet do believe in God. First it was said, "there is a God" and then someone said, "no there isn't". So what you are doing is defining the positive/negative relationship to your advantage, not proving anything.

It is not "advantage", it is logic. The null hypothesis is that there is nothing/no change. Then you have to supply an alternative with evidence.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is not "advantage", it is logic. The null hypothesis is that there is nothing/no change. Then you have to supply an alternative with evidence.

Quite, and "no change" in this case can be defined as either "belief in God" or "lack of belief in God", given that belief is the traditional default I have the right to suggest that the onus is on you to demonstrate He does not exist. Only when atheists form the majority of the population can you justifiably claim that the atheist position is the null.

[Beskar]

Quite, and "no change" in this case can be defined as either "belief in God" or "lack of belief in God", given that belief is the traditional default I have the right to suggest that the onus is on you to demonstrate He does not exist. Only when atheists form the majority of the population can you justifiably claim that the atheist position is the null.

No, that is simply illogical. You are purposefully trying to twist logic in a horribly mutant deformed creature which should be shot on sight. The default is "nothing", zip, zing, zitch. No matter how "popular" or "old" or "traditional", "religious/atheist" it is. Nothing is simply that. It doesn't change because you want it too. The default value is constant at "nothing".

As such, the value is "there no such things as apples" untill I go to Tesco and go "here is an apple". The null is always that, unless there is a case for proven alternative hypothesis. The default isn't "there is an apple".

[Sigurd]

Quite, and "no change" in this case can be defined as either "belief in God" or "lack of belief in God", given that belief is the *traditional default I have the right to suggest that the onus is on you to demonstrate He does not exist. **Only when atheists form the majority of the population can you justifiably claim that the atheist position is the null.

*Argumentum ad Antiquitatem
**Argumentum ad Populum

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, that is simply illogical. You are purposefully trying to twist logic in a horribly mutant deformed creature which should be shot on sight. The default is "nothing", zip, zing, zitch. No matter how "popular" or "old" or "traditional", "religious/atheist" it is. Nothing is simply that. It doesn't change because you want it too. The default value is constant at "nothing".

As such, the value is "there no such things as apples" untill I go to Tesco and go "here is an apple". The null is always that, unless there is a case for proven alternative hypothesis. The default isn't "there is an apple".

Unless I'm right, and the natural position is belief. That's like saying "the sky doesn't exist" when standing under it. We percieve that the sky exists, all evidence points in that direction, so the onus is on the doubter.

*Argumentum ad Antiquitatem
**Argumentum ad Populum

Does that make me wrong, necessarily? I didn't say that God exists, merely that the onus is on the doubter.

[Beskar]

Does that make me wrong, necessarily? I didn't say that God exists, merely that the onus is on the doubter.

No it isn't, the Burden of Prove is for the person claiming something other than the null hypothesis. This is used logically both in Law and in Science. For example, in a liable case, the newspaper has to provide the evidence saying it is true, not for the victim to attempt to disprove. As such in my example above, the null hypothesis is that there is no apple, but you can easily supply the evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What you are doing is instead of simply admitting you have zero evidence, is trying to claw yourself out, and in the process, trying to appeal to the audience you are "in the right", when you are incorrect as a defense mechanism. I would give you more crediability if you simply admitted to the faults on your side, then simply attempt to deny and twist everything.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No it isn't, the Burden of Prove is for the person claiming something other than the null hypothesis. This is used logically both in Law and in Science. For example, in a liable case, the newspaper has to provide the evidence saying it is true, not for the victim to attempt to disprove. As such in my example above, the null hypothesis is that there is no apple, but you can easily supply the evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What you are doing is instead of simply admitting you have zero evidence, is trying to claw yourself out, and in the process, trying to appeal to the audience you are "in the right", when you are incorrect as a defense mechanism. I would give you more crediability if you simply admitted to the faults on your side, then simply attempt to deny and twist everything.

I'm a historian, I use a negativistic paradigm. Namely, a hypophesis can be accepted so long as it fits the available evidence and cannot be disproved. That is a perfectly respectable way of working.

[Sigurd]

No it isn't, the Burden of Prove is for the person claiming something other than the null hypothesis. This is used logically both in Law and in Science. For example, in a liable case, the newspaper has to provide the evidence saying it is true, not for the victim to attempt to disprove. As such in my example above, the null hypothesis is that there is no apple, but you can easily supply the evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What you are doing is instead of simply admitting you have zero evidence, is trying to claw yourself out, and in the process, trying to appeal to the audience you are "in the right", when you are incorrect as a defense mechanism. I would give you more credibility if you simply admitted to the faults on your side, then simply attempt to deny and twist everything.

Using null hypothesis in the question of God.

Null Hypothesis = There is no God
Alternative Hypothesis = There is a God

If either is untestable or unfalsifiable, the hypothesis is useless.
Given that the probability p value of finding observable data on either hypothesis is non existent, we have to conclude that this hypothesis can't be used.

God is metaphysical and hence removed from the scientific realm.
= Rejection of the null hypothesis.

[Reenk Roink]

First of all the burden of proof is not something set in stone for one side and not for the other. If someone is claiming/arguing that god exists to another person (who does not believe god exists), then the burden of proof is on the claimant. Similarly, if someone is claiming/arguing that god does not exist to another person (who does not believe that god does not exist), then the burden of proof is on the claimant.

To anticipate Russell's teapot being brought up, don't bother, Russell was wrong.

You can't use the Bible as proof for the existence of God, thereby showing that atheism is false.
Calling the Bible the word of God presupposes the very thing you are trying to prove and it becomes circular reasoning. It begs the question. You need to first prove that God exist before showing how this God inspired the writers of this book.

In short - you can't use Bible quotes in this debate.

You have completely missed rotorgun's point here Sigurd. You are simply incorrect in your assertion that "you cannot use the Bible as proof for the existence of God." The Bible, like other religious texts, is not only directed towards believers, but non believers as well. It speaks to the faithful for various reasons, but it also speaks to the heathen, to try and persuade and warn him among other things.

You then proceed to support this wrong assertion of yours by setting up an argument that rotorgun never used. The passage he quotes is not guilty of any such thing. It is not pointing to the divine origin of the Bible to prove the existence of the divine.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I
PS: I am no radical Christian, but I am devout, and humble in my beliefs. I judge no man, but let him to look into the mirror of his own soul. These are some fairly convincing arguments, set forth in a very legal style, arguing against atheism.

What do you mean by "humble in my beliefs"? Are you saying that your beliefs could easily be false, or that you don't push them on other people?

[Beskar]

God is metaphysical and hence removed from the scientific realm.
= Rejection of the null hypothesis.

= Rejection of "God" in any rational debate.

If you cannot define "God" in any way other than an unfalsifiable definition, then don't bother debating it, since you automatically lose.

Blunt, but true.

[Sigurd]

You have completely missed rotorgun's point here Sigurd. You are simply incorrect in your assertion that "you cannot use the Bible as proof for the existence of God." The Bible, like other religious texts, is not only directed towards believers, but non believers as well. It speaks to the faithful for various reasons, but it also speaks to the heathen, to try and persuade and warn him among other things.

You then proceed to support this wrong assertion of yours by setting up an argument that rotorgun never used. The passage he quotes is not guilty of any such thing. It is not pointing to the divine origin of the Bible to prove the existence of the divine.

I don't think I have.
Did he not write this?:

# Verse 18. ”For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;”

# Verse 19. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."

# Verse 20. “…the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

# Verse 21. “Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and

Verse 22. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” -Romans, Chapter 2

PS: I am no radical Christian, but I am devout, and humble in my beliefs. I judge no man, but let him to look into the mirror of his own soul. These are some fairly convincing arguments, set forth in a very legal style, arguing against atheism.

I see a lot of God said this and God said that as an argument against atheism. Which is argument against the belief that there is not a God. Which is arguments for an existing God. Which is circular reasoning.
He is using the supposedly word of God to argue the existence of a God (which is what arguing against atheism is) which is begging the question.
It is a fallacy and therefore not submittable in a debate about theism vs. atheism.

= Rejection of "God" in any rational debate.

If you cannot define "God" in any way other than an unfalsifiable definition, then don't bother debating it, since you automatically lose.

Blunt, but true.

I am just saying that you can't use the null hypothesis on the question of there being a God or not. It is a statistical tool used in other areas than a philosophical question.
I believe there are other logical reasonings more applicable. One particular of which I am prepared to argue in a formal debate.
I am not going to reveal it here, so don't ask.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am not going to reveal it here, so don't ask.

My money's firmly on a modern version of Aquinas' first mover argument. More precisely, a modern variant of the Kalam cosmological argument.

[Reenk Roink]

I don't think I have.
Did he not write this?:
I see a lot of God said this and God said that as an argument against atheism. Which is argument against the belief that there is not a God. Which is arguments for an existing God. Which is circular reasoning.
He is using the supposedly word of God to argue the existence of a God (which is what arguing against atheism is) which is begging the question.
It is a fallacy and therefore not submittable in a debate about theism vs. atheism.

That is the oddest interpretation of that passage and subsequent reasoning I have seen and I once skimmed through the tripe of the Skeptics Annotated Bible!

Sigurd, if get you right, are you saying that since that passage says "God says" and mentions God in other ways, that it is somehow trying to infer the ontological reality of God? Are you saying that is how rotorgun is using it? Because that is the ONLY way it could be considered begging the question (and it would indeed be an incredibly subtle form of begging the question as well).

That's not at all what I saw rotorgun trying to do.

Which is argument against the belief that there is not a God. Which is arguments for an existing God.

Somewhat tangential to our discussion but, no, arguments against the belief that there is not a god do not necessarily constitute arguments for the existence of a god. I could argue that there is no proof against the existence of god. This argues against the belief that there is not a god. It does not make any positive argument for a god.

Which is circular reasoning. He is using the supposedly word of God to argue the existence of a God

No, as I've mentioned before, the ONLY way in which invoking the Bible in an argument (aside from an argument contained in the Bible that is itself circular) could be if it followed this pattern: God exists because the Bible said so and the Bible is true because it is the "word of God"/divinely inspired/what have you.

In other words, a reference to the Bible's mention of God and subsequent inference of his ontological reality from it which is then BACKED UP BY the authoritative nature of the Bible with this authority stemming from the God that the Bible asserted could be considered circular.

Say we tweak the argument and make it: God exists because the Bible said so and the Bible is true because of the Bible Code which demonstrates the mathematical perfection underpinning it. That escapes any charge of circular reasoning.

That is pretty obviously not what rotorgun is doing. At least I think so from the most reasonable interpretation of his post. We can let rotorgun tell us himself what he had in mind to settle the matter.

If someone however went through the Bible and found some argument which he then presented to us, it is perfectly OK.

P.S: Begging the question should not be considered a fallacy. It obviously isn't a formal fallacy of logic (the argument form A therefore A is deductively valid) and it's only considered an 'informal fallacy' (which is a meaningless designation because fallacy is so broadly defined in the informal sense and then purported to have the same status as an actual 'fallacy' in the formal sense) because Aristotle used to play a crappy game that we don't play now and thought it would be good to have a certain rule, which he then tried to add to the rules of reasoning and discussion and many since him have sadly accepted uncritically.

At the very best it can either be classified as a non-argument (not a fallacy) or be classified along with strawmen argument as things not to do in discussions because then it can be said that the discussion doesn't work as well when it happens (though I'd say a strawman is a big no-no whereas begging the question is nowhere near that level in a discussion... ).

My money's firmly on a modern version of Aquinas' first mover argument. More precisely, a modern variant of the Kalam cosmological argument.

The Kalam type arguments are quite different from the prime mover arguments that Aquinas referenced. The latter were drawn from the influence of Aristotle (and earlier), where as the Kalam type argument can be seen as a reaction to those arguments, to uphold the creation from nothing and creation of the universe so dear to the orthodox creed of Islam.

[Sigurd]

My money's firmly on a modern version of Aquinas' first mover argument. More precisely, a modern variant of the Kalam cosmological argument.

Its been used already... Nope, you go home with empty pockets.

...

A lot of words there Reenk.
My main point is that he is quoting the Bible to support an argument against atheism.

You are however correct... we should ask him what he is saying, because obviously it is not at all clear to me.
How is Romans chapter 2 an argument against atheism?

As I said before, any debate between the two camps, theism and atheism, always boils down to the existence of God.
It is on this single question they build their entire world view. So yes, every argument should be viewed as an answer to this question.

[Rhyfelwyr]

With verse 20, I think Rotorgun was getting at the argument by Paul that the existence of God is self-evident.

[Sigurd]

With verse 20, I think Rotorgun was getting at the argument by Paul that the existence of God is self-evident.

If he wants to use the teleological argument for God, then he can do so.